Why is it that every election all we hear is that "it's the economy, stupid" or jobs or defense or foreign policy but the one thing that will sink or swim a candidate is whether or not they're pro-choice or pro-life? Or is that issue a red herring?

linda22003

11-16-2011, 09:57 AM

That issue is a red herring, but labels are important to people, it seems.

Molon Labe

11-16-2011, 10:46 AM

Why is it that every election all we hear is that "it's the economy, stupid" or jobs or defense or foreign policy but the one thing that will sink or swim a candidate is whether or not they're pro-choice or pro-life? Or is that issue a red herring?

Seems like just another red herring. The media focuses on all the marginal issues to take focus away from the ones that really need attention. That's the media's job these days in my opinon. Unfortunately there are voters out there ignorant enough one issue voters out there to eat it up.

noonwitch

11-16-2011, 10:50 AM

I think it's an issue that many give lip service to, in order to exploit the votes of those who actually really do care about it.

Conservative Christians and the GOP are like blacks and the Dem party-where else you going to go?

NJCardFan

11-16-2011, 11:12 AM

I think it's an issue that many give lip service to, in order to exploit the votes of those who actually really do care about it.

Conservative Christians and the GOP are like blacks and the Dem party-where else you going to go?

And playing up the "woman's right to choose" angle has no jack in the conversation?

marv

11-16-2011, 11:17 AM

Jobs, economy, foreign policy, and the likes are areas that can be discussed and agreements reached by reasonable people. Abortion is not. Either you're for it or against it; no middle ground - period!

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 11:45 AM

It is a litmus test. It is the issue you must be on the right side of no matter what.

You cannot have a Republican presidential candidate that is Pro-Choice and you cannot have a Democratic presidential candidate that is Pro-Life. That simple. I would say Vice President as well. That is why Rudy will never get near either position.

Gun control used to be that way but that political argument was effectively settled in the 90's.

AmPat

11-16-2011, 12:41 PM

It is a litmus test. It is the issue you must be on the right side of no matter what.

You cannot have a Republican presidential candidate that is Pro-Choice and you cannot have a Democratic presidential candidate that is Pro-Life. That simple. I would say Vice President as well. That is why Rudy will never get near either position.

Gun control used to be that way but that political argument was effectively settled in the 90's.

I'd usually agree but with the Marxist in the White House, I'd vote for Howdy Doody while he was donating to Planned (abortion) Parenthood.

Any candidate that is Conservative is preferable to that Jackass in the WH now.

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 12:47 PM

I'd usually agree but with the Marxist in the White House, I'd vote for Howdy Doody while he was donating to Planned (abortion) Parenthood.

Any candidate that is Conservative is preferable to that Jackass in the WH now.

I was talking about the nominating process. A Pro-Choice Republican would never make it to that point (nor a Pro-Life Democrat).

AmPat

11-16-2011, 12:56 PM

I was talking about the nominating process. A Pro-Choice Republican would never make it to that point (nor a Pro-Life Democrat).

So was I. ANY candidate that comes out on top gets my vote to oust the Marxist-In-Chief. If a "Pro Choice" candidate rises to the top, I assure you that Conservatives will rally around him. The objective is pure and simply: get rid of the garbage in the White House.:cool:

Odysseus

11-16-2011, 04:13 PM

Aside from the morality of the issue itself, abortion positions also tell a lot about a candidate. Why? Because abortion in the post Roe era occupies the same place in American political life that slavery did in the 1850s.

The issues that led to the Civil War were a combination of the economic, social and political, as the south was primarily agrarian and the north was industrialized, so the north had an interest in keeping raw material prices low, while the south wanted to get as much as they could for their output. However, since industrialization was making the US into a world power, there was a compelling national interest in developing industry. Both sides considered the other morally suspect, with northerners seeing southerners as illiterate bumkins who imposed their will on slaves in order to maintain an aristocracy, while southerners saw northerners as urban immigrant trash who were using corrupt political machinations to deny southerners their economic rights. The politics of the period favored the north, as the rapid growth of industrialized cities meant rapid growth in representation in the house, while the senate was where compromises were reached. Hiowever, all of this was quite a mouthful, and not everybody grasped the nuances of each policy. The slavery question provided a convenient shorthand for identifying the sainted compatriot and the hated other. The vast majority of Americans, both northern and southern, did not own slaves and neither accrued benefit or suffered impacts from their ownership by others, but it was a great shorthand indicator for seeing where someone's sympathies lay. An abolotitionist was likely to support other northern positions, while a pro-slavery person was likely to sympathize with the southerners. It wasn't a perfect litmus test, but it was effective often enough to be used as the primary emotional catalyst for mobilizing public opinion and a great way to identify the enemy.

Fast forward to now, and we see that the differences in red and blue America are based on a complex, but narrow set of cultural and political divergences. Liberals and conservatives have fundamentally different views of human nature, with correspondingly fundamental differences in philosophies of government. These differences manifest themselves in different ways on a variety of issues, such as gun control (liberals want the state to protect us from ourselves and others, while conservatives see the state and otheres as something that we need to protect ourselves from), national defense (liberals see our national enemies as people that we can talk to and find common ground with, while conservatives see them as an existential threat, which, BTW, is exactly the opposite of how the parties approach each other for the daily business of running the country), taxation (more vs. less), regulation (perfect endstate vs. cost-benefits analysis), civil rights (groups vs. individual), etc. Abortion encompasses a host of conservative vs. liberal positions, including Constitutional limits on federal power, limits on judicial authority, individual vs. group rights (individual infants vs. all women), government mandates in healthcare, racial politics (far more blacks and Latinos are aborted than whites and Asians, something that has its roots in the eugenics movement, which the progressives were enthusiastic partisans of, especially Margaret Sanger), etc.

To cut to the chase, abortion is a fairly reliable shorthand for where someone stands on a host of current issues.

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 04:19 PM

Aside from the morality of the issue itself, abortion positions also tell a lot about a candidate. Why? Because abortion in the post Roe era occupies the same place in American political life that slavery did in the 1850s.

The issues that led to the Civil War were a combination of the economic, social and political, as the south was primarily agrarian and the north was industrialized, so the north had an interest in keeping raw material prices low, while the south wanted to get as much as they could for their output. However, since industrialization was making the US into a world power, there was a compelling national interest in developing industry. Both sides considered the other morally suspect, with northerners seeing southerners as illiterate bumkins who imposed their will on slaves in order to maintain an aristocracy, while southerners saw northerners as urban immigrant trash who were using corrupt political machinations to deny southerners their economic rights. The politics of the period favored the north, as the rapid growth of industrialized cities meant rapid growth in representation in the house, while the senate was where compromises were reached. Hiowever, all of this was quite a mouthful, and not everybody grasped the nuances of each policy. The slavery question provided a convenient shorthand for identifying the sainted compatriot and the hated other. The vast majority of Americans, both northern and southern, did not own slaves and neither accrued benefit or suffered impacts from their ownership by others, but it was a great shorthand indicator for seeing where someone's sympathies lay. An abolotitionist was likely to support other northern positions, while a pro-slavery person was likely to sympathize with the southerners. It wasn't a perfect litmus test, but it was effective often enough to be used as the primary emotional catalyst for mobilizing public opinion and a great way to identify the enemy.

Fast forward to now, and we see that the differences in red and blue America are based on a complex, but narrow set of cultural and political divergences. Liberals and conservatives have fundamentally different views of human nature, with correspondingly fundamental differences in philosophies of government. These differences manifest themselves in different ways on a variety of issues, such as gun control (liberals want the state to protect us from ourselves and others, while conservatives see the state and otheres as something that we need to protect ourselves from), national defense (liberals see our national enemies as people that we can talk to and find common ground with, while conservatives see them as an existential threat, which, BTW, is exactly the opposite of how the parties approach each other for the daily business of running the country), taxation (more vs. less), regulation (perfect endstate vs. cost-benefits analysis), civil rights (groups vs. individual), etc. Abortion encompasses a host of conservative vs. liberal positions, including Constitutional limits on federal power, limits on judicial authority, individual vs. group rights (individual infants vs. all women), government mandates in healthcare, racial politics (far more blacks and Latinos are aborted than whites and Asians, something that has its roots in the eugenics movement, which the progressives were enthusiastic partisans of, especially Margaret Sanger), etc.

To cut to the chase, abortion is a fairly reliable shorthand for where someone stands on a host of current issues.

I disagree. I doubt you can determine my stand on any given issue based on that one.

Odysseus

11-16-2011, 04:36 PM

I disagree. I doubt you can determine my stand on any given issue based on that one.

I didn't say that it was a perfect one, just that it was a good indicator for most people. There are lots of exceptions.

But, just for the sake of argument, what is your take on abortion?

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 04:52 PM

I didn't say that it was a perfect one, just that it was a good indicator for most people. There are lots of exceptions.

But, just for the sake of argument, what is your take on abortion?

I oppose it in all cases except for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and support any laws that restrict or retard it in this or any nation. I believe Roe v Wade is one of the worst cases ever to come out of the United States Supreme Court.

I consider abortion to be the Great Sin of modern Western culture and a symptom of a seriously flawed society and am in awe, when I allow myself to think about, of how we can possibly think it is a preferred state of being when we are slaughtering our children in the womb.

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 04:58 PM

I oppose it in all cases except for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and support any laws that restrict or retard it in this or any nation. I believe Roe v Wade is one of the worst cases ever to come out of the United States Supreme Court.

I consider abortion to be the Great Sin of modern Western culture and a symptom of a seriously flawed society and am in awe, when I allow myself to think about, of how we can possibly think it is a preferred state of being when we are slaughtering our children in the womb.

Good for you!!

AmPat

11-16-2011, 05:38 PM

Would somebody please check the weather report in Hell, I actually agree with AD on something.:eek:

Odysseus

11-16-2011, 06:39 PM

I oppose it in all cases except for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and support any laws that restrict or retard it in this or any nation. I believe Roe v Wade is one of the worst cases ever to come out of the United States Supreme Court.

I consider abortion to be the Great Sin of modern Western culture and a symptom of a seriously flawed society and am in awe, when I allow myself to think about, of how we can possibly think it is a preferred state of being when we are slaughtering our children in the womb.

Seriously?

And do you consider Roe v. Wade wrong solely on abortion criteria, or do you also object to the usurpation of legislative authority by the court and the erosion of Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government?

I find it hard to reconcile your position with your sympathy for the Palestinians, who routinely send their children out as suicide bombers. Do you see any conflict there?

Bailey

11-16-2011, 07:40 PM

I oppose it in all cases except for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and support any laws that restrict or retard it in this or any nation. I believe Roe v Wade is one of the worst cases ever to come out of the United States Supreme Court.

I consider abortion to be the Great Sin of modern Western culture and a symptom of a seriously flawed society and am in awe, when I allow myself to think about, of how we can possibly think it is a preferred state of being when we are slaughtering our children in the womb.

Who are you and what did you do with AD?

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 07:52 PM

Seriously?

Seriously.

I actually toned it down in my post.

And do you consider Roe v. Wade wrong solely on abortion criteria, or do you also object to the usurpation of legislative authority by the court and the erosion of Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government?

I have many objections to the decision. But ultimately it was simply a conclusion on an issue grasping for a reason and it fails miserably.

I find it hard to reconcile your position with your sympathy for the Palestinians, who routinely send their children out as suicide bombers. Do you see any conflict there?

First of all, I doubt you have a clue as to my feelings on the Israel/Palestian issue in general because you consider anyone not reflexively pro-Israel (I would characterize your position as prostrate to Israel) as somehow condoning the painting of pizzaria walls with the brains of Israeli children. Your mind is closed to any information that conflicts with your wholly created reality with regards to that Middle Eastern nation.

But as to the issue of being sympathetic to innocent people, or oppressed people, or marginalized people, or people whose situation is pathetic, or people who face injustice, I see no conflict with that and having sympathy with those in the womb who are without a doubt the most innocent and vulnerable human beings among us.

But, now you know my position on abortion. Now can you take that and determine my position on capital punishment? Tax policy? Social Security privatization? Light bulb standards? Pollution control vs economic development? It doesn't have to be those. Pick anything you like.

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 07:53 PM

Who are you and what did you do with AD?

I hired two midgets to steal his DNA.

AmPat

11-16-2011, 08:59 PM

Yep, thought so. It's snowing down there.:eek:

Articulate_Ape

11-16-2011, 09:29 PM

Jobs, economy, foreign policy, and the likes are areas that can be discussed and agreements reached by reasonable people. Abortion is not. Either you're for it or against it; no middle ground - period!

That is not entirely true. I personally think that abortion is not a good thing, but I also think that it should be legal on the grounds of the hierarchy of rights. You are correct that the two sides are diametrically opposed to one another, but that is primarily because one side wants to ignore science and the other wants to ignore reality and both want to impose that ignorance on the other. Like most discordant and complicated dilemmas that confront society, the solution is not as complicated one thinks and the conflict is generally one of simple semantics and definitions.

In the case of abortion, only those who consciously choose to ignore medical science today can argue that human life begins at conception. With premature babies surviving from earlier and earlier stages of development to those born as a result of in vitro fertilization, one need engage in cognitive dissonance to ignore this fact. Meanwhile, abortion whether in utero or ex utero has been around for as long and humans have been around. This is where the hierarchy of rights comes in. The hierarchy of rights means first come, first serve. In a nutshell, it is how procreation in the nature has worked for a very, very long time.

The pro-life camp, as noble a goal as they have, need to understand that "abortion" is not anything remotely new to humanity. The pro-choice camp needs to understand what the choice is and stop soothing themselves with the salve of convenient fallacies.

When everyone can grow up and accept that abortion is killing a child AND that a mother has a right to murder her child if she feels it will benefit her in some way, then we will be close to settling this issue in the way that natural law has done for a very long time.

At the end of the day, the solution to the abortion issue will be dictated by advances in medical technology that will disarm the pro-choice arguments regarding the beginning of a human life. It will remain to be seen whether the pro-life voices will be satisfied to let human conscience decide whether or not to kill for some hierarchy of need.

I suspect that once both sides can accept the conscious choice of hierarchical murder and nonjudgmental acceptance that those who choose such a course must live and die with that decision respectively, this matter will be put to rest.

We aren't that mature yet.

NJCardFan

11-16-2011, 09:46 PM

See, here's my take. Personally I find abortion morally objectionable and only excuse it only in cases of a serious threat to the mother's life. That said, I don't think it should be made illegal. We are supposed to be free in this country and with that freedom comes the freedom to make the hard decision. But as with a lot of things, just because you can doesn't mean you should. So, your view one way or the other wouldn't influence me in choosing the leader of the country.

Novaheart

11-16-2011, 09:52 PM

Why is it that every election all we hear is that "it's the economy, stupid" or jobs or defense or foreign policy but the one thing that will sink or swim a candidate is whether or not they're pro-choice or pro-life? Or is that issue a red herring?

I'd rather be poorer in a secure nation where the needs of citizens are met than be richer in a nation over run by illegal aliens. And while we are on the subject, whose brilliant idea was it to allow Iraqi "refugees" to come to the US en masse? Is the government fucking insane? You can't lay this on Obama either, it's actually a little tighter under Obama, but still unacceptable.

Why don't we let North Koreans come here too? After all, they just want a better life. Fuck it, open the doors to everyone, it won't matter to rich guys like internet millionaires, it will just fuck over the rest of us.

PS- All of which is to say that "the economy" is what it is and will get better or worse over time. Once we are over run by illegal aliens and mass immigration, we can't unring that bell.

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 10:01 PM

See, here's my take. Personally I find abortion morally objectionable and only excuse it only in cases of a serious threat to the mother's life. That said, I don't think it should be made illegal. We are supposed to be free in this country and with that freedom comes the freedom to make the hard decision. But as with a lot of things, just because you can doesn't mean you should. So, your view one way or the other wouldn't influence me in choosing the leader of the country.

That is pro choice.

Articulate_Ape

11-16-2011, 10:17 PM

That is pro choice.

Life is all about choices.

Arroyo_Doble

11-16-2011, 10:28 PM

Life is all about choices.

Death too, apparently.

Articulate_Ape

11-16-2011, 11:00 PM

Death too, apparently.

Always has been.

NJCardFan

11-16-2011, 11:21 PM

That is pro choice.

Yes it is. However, it's not a choice I would make not to mention it's not a choice I will ever have to make.

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 11:28 PM

Yes it is. However, it's not a choice I would make not to mention it's not a choice I will ever have to make.

I realize that, you were clear, that is a position a lot of people have.

NJCardFan

11-16-2011, 11:28 PM

This is a paradox isn't it? On this issue alone, conservatives want the government to make abortion illegal and liberals want the government to stay out of it.

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 11:30 PM

This is a paradox isn't it? On this issue alone, conservatives want the government to make abortion illegal and liberals want the government to stay out of it.

Read very carefully what Ape wrote above. #22

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 11:36 PM

Then read this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is why conservatives say this is a constitutional responsibility of the government.

NJCardFan

11-16-2011, 11:43 PM

Then read this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is why conservatives say this is a constitutional responsibility of the government.
Um, the quote above is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution, genius.

Rockntractor

11-16-2011, 11:47 PM

Um, the quote above is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution, genius.

They have been considered to be equally binding up until recent times.. I'm not insulting you, is it necessary you take that tone with me?

NJCardFan

11-17-2011, 12:03 AM

They have been considered to be equally binding up until recent times.. I'm not insulting you, is it necessary you take that tone with me?

Because it drives me crazy when people connect the 2. Christ, they weren't even written in the same frigging decade. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Declaration is a screw you to King George III.

Rockntractor

11-17-2011, 12:14 AM

Because it drives me crazy when people connect the 2. Christ, they weren't even written in the same frigging decade. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Declaration is a screw you to King George III.

You see no connection between the two, fine.

Rockntractor

11-17-2011, 12:33 AM

Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Qunicy Adams

p>

U.S.A. IDENTIFIED BY THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled."

The Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent documents. The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. The men who wrote it declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

The Articles of Incorporation call the entity into existence and the By-laws then explain how it will be governed. Therefore the governing of the corporation under its by-laws must always be within the purposes and framework set forth in its Articles. The By-laws may neither nullify nor supersede the Articles. The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration.

PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII. The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the USA for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness...they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

If anyone has taught you doctrines conflicting with the light shining through our Declaration of Independence, come back to the truths that were written then for you to see again now.

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

SUPREME COURT decision of 1897: Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

H Our government exists to protect the Constitutional rights of the people. Those rights are protected by the Constitution and its Amendments as the law of the land. Only the people have the incontestable, unalienable, unencroachable right to change the laws which they have established. The elected and appointed officials may not change the law of the Constitution, neither can the courts change the law. Not even the Supreme Court can change any law. Courts only judge situations to which the law applies. Courts may not judge the law.

Not the courts, not the officials, not even the Supreme Court, have the incontestable, unalienable, and unremoveable right to change the law of the land. Only the people. They do it through their elected officials of the many states. But for such power to make laws to exist in the hands of a few appointed men, untouchable by the people, that is the exact thing our Founders denied. They set up the Constitution so only Congress should have the power to make laws, and Congress is elected by the people. Therefore Congress reflects the will of the people. Judges should only apply the law of the people, not make law for the people to follow. Judges are to follow the law of the people.
http://www.christianparents.com/deconst.htm

Odysseus

11-17-2011, 03:01 AM

Seriously.

I actually toned it down in my post.

I have many objections to the decision. But ultimately it was simply a conclusion on an issue grasping for a reason and it fails miserably.

Yes, but I have a reason for asking my question. It's not about playing gotcha, I really am trying to determine what your core principles are. So, is one of your objections to Roe the usurpation of legislative authority by the court and the erosion of Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government?

First of all, I doubt you have a clue as to my feelings on the Israel/Palestian issue in general because you consider anyone not reflexively pro-Israel (I would characterize your position as prostrate to Israel) as somehow condoning the painting of pizzaria walls with the brains of Israeli children. Your mind is closed to any information that conflicts with your wholly created reality with regards to that Middle Eastern nation.
Kind of missed my position by a mile. I'm not prostrate to anybody. But I am a Jew, and when people talk about murdering us en masse, I've learned that they mean it. I'm therefore sensitive to anything that endangers half of the remaining twelve million of us in the world, especially since antisemitic incidents are on the rise globally, and the people who want to see Israel "wiped off the map", as the patron of Hamas has said, tend not to be too picky about where they find us. Given that, I tend to be a bit less than patient with people who make up facts about the Middle East and ignore what is really going on there. But, I'll tell you what: the next time that somebody murders half of the people in the world with your DNA, and a new generation comes along and talks about finishing the job, you can judge me.

But as to the issue of being sympathetic to innocent people, or oppressed people, or marginalized people, or people whose situation is pathetic, or people who face injustice, I see no conflict with that and having sympathy with those in the womb who are without a doubt the most innocent and vulnerable human beings among us.
Okay, so if those in the womb are murdered, you're outraged, but if a people weans their children on hate, straps bombs to them and turns them into organic predator drones, you justify it as the action of an "oppressed" people, even though the ones who oppressed them aren't the ones that they are targeting. You've got a serious blind spot.

But, now you know my position on abortion. Now can you take that and determine my position on capital punishment? Tax policy? Social Security privatization? Light bulb standards? Pollution control vs economic development? It doesn't have to be those. Pick anything you like.
From abortion alone? No. But, you do tend to favor an obtrusive state, and while you see unborn life as innocent and in need of protection, you also tend to take a paternalistic view of all sorts of "oppressed" peoples. So, I'm inclined to say that you're anti capital punishment and Social Security privatization, favor more taxes rather than less and see pollution controls as more critical than economic development. As for light bulb standards, if you buy into the feminist line about oppression, then your sympathies will be with the socket, not the bulb. :D

This is a paradox isn't it? On this issue alone, conservatives want the government to make abortion illegal and liberals want the government to stay out of it.

Not really. Abortion weakens nations. It reduces the population, inculcates a callous disregard for life and reduces life to a matter of convenience. It also separates sex from procreation and responsibility. People who kill their own children out of a sense of entitlement will tolerate anything.

Arroyo_Doble

11-17-2011, 12:38 PM

Yes, but I have a reason for asking my question. It's not about playing gotcha, I really am trying to determine what your core principles are. So, is one of your objections to Roe the usurpation of legislative authority by the court and the erosion of Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government?

The former moreso than the latter. At the time, there was a great deal of debate surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment. That amendment, had it been ratified, was the true place to find a Constitutional argument for whether or not an individual could terminate her pregnancy. It also was a political, (small d) democratic means of affecting change. Using the 14th (and the 9th to a degree) in a tortured opinion was the Court overstepping itself in order to solve a political, not legal, question.

I personally believe the phrase "activist court" or "activist judge" is a lazy shorthand for "I disagree with the decision," but in the case of Roe v Wade (and I would argue Bush v Gore as well), the Court took what should have been solved through the Constitional legislative process and cut that process off almost by fiat.

Kind of missed my position by a mile. I'm not prostrate to anybody. But I am a Jew, and when people talk about murdering us en masse, I've learned that they mean it. I'm therefore sensitive to anything that endangers half of the remaining twelve million of us in the world, especially since antisemitic incidents are on the rise globally, and the people who want to see Israel "wiped off the map", as the patron of Hamas has said, tend not to be too picky about where they find us. Given that, I tend to be a bit less than patient with people who make up facts about the Middle East and ignore what is really going on there. But, I'll tell you what: the next time that somebody murders half of the people in the world with your DNA, and a new generation comes along and talks about finishing the job, you can judge me.

Okay, so if those in the womb are murdered, you're outraged, but if a people weans their children on hate, straps bombs to them and turns them into organic predator drones, you justify it as the action of an "oppressed" people, even though the ones who oppressed them aren't the ones that they are targeting. You've got a serious blind spot.

You show that you have no clue what my feelings and opinions are on the issue.

As far as genocide and ethnic cleansing, I learned awhile ago that I was mistaken and the phrase "never again" seems to only apply to Jews.

Or, as the character said in the movie Hannah and Her Sisters:

You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?"

From abortion alone? No. But, you do tend to favor an obtrusive state,

I do not.

and while you see unborn life as innocent and in need of protection, you also tend to take a paternalistic view of all sorts of "oppressed" peoples.

"[P]aternalistic"? I notice that come up alot to dismiss those who defend someone outside their tribe.

So, I'm inclined to say that you're anti capital punishment

That is correct. I do not approve of the State executing its citizens. That's a bit too obtrusive for me.

and Social Security privatization,

Wrong on that one.

favor more taxes rather than less

That is meaningless outsid of the context of spending. I believe we should pay for the government we want and not fool ourselves by demanding complex, robust governing institutions while bemoaning its cost.

and see pollution controls as more critical than economic development.

It is balanced, in my opinion. My community sits on top of a large natural gas reserve. I want it tapped but that doesn't mean I am willing to be poisoned.

As for light bulb standards, if you buy into the feminist line about oppression, then your sympathies will be with the socket, not the bulb. :D

LED's, baby. That's the way to go. Save the incandescents for when you sell the house.

Odysseus

11-17-2011, 01:26 PM

The former moreso than the latter. At the time, there was a great deal of debate surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment. That amendment, had it been ratified, was the true place to find a Constitutional argument for whether or not an individual could terminate her pregnancy. It also was a political, (small d) democratic means of affecting change. Using the 14th (and the 9th to a degree) in a tortured opinion was the Court overstepping itself in order to solve a political, not legal, question.

I personally believe the phrase "activist court" or "activist judge" is a lazy shorthand for "I disagree with the decision," but in the case of Roe v Wade (and I would argue Bush v Gore as well), the Court took what should have been solved through the Constitional legislative process and cut that process off almost by fiat.
To me, activism in the court has a very specific meaning, that the court has usurped a power of one of the other branches. In Roe v. Wade, the court wrote legislation, whicn intruded on the powers of congress and the executive branch. In Bush v Gore, the court decided the case on the basis of the Florida statutes governing the rules of recounts and delegate selection, and did not write new laws or invalidate old ones. Thus, Roe v Wade was an example of an activist judiciary, while Bush v Gore was not.

You show that you have no clue what my feelings and opinions are on the issue.
Then feel free to clarify them.

As far as genocide and ethnic cleansing, I learned awhile ago that I was mistaken and the phrase "never again" seems to only apply to Jews.

Or, as the character said in the movie Hannah and Her Sisters:

You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?"

Never again doesn't seem to apply to anyone. Just ask Ahmedinejad. But to my mind, it should also apply to Armenians, Cambodians and anyone else who was on the receiving end of a genocidal campaign. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to protect everyone, everywhere, but I have no problem providing people with the means to protect themselves, or at least not attacking them for protecting themselves.

[QUOTE=Arroyo_Doble;464246]I do not.
In some areas, yes. You're not a litmus test kind of person, which is one of the reasons that you frustrate so many of us here. You're often on the right side of an issue, but when you are wrong, you are spectacularly so.

"[P]aternalistic"? I notice that come up alot to dismiss those who defend someone outside their tribe.
Perhaps others use it that way, but I mean that you see "oppressed" peoples as needing intervention, without regard to why they are in their situation in the first place. The vast majority of illegal immigrants would not be illegals if they had not crossed the borders illegally. The children that they brought with them, who had no choice in the matter, are another issue, but the problem that we have is that if we grant citizenship to those children, we are rewarding the law-breaking of their parents and punishing legal immigrants who followed the law. Your compassion for the illegal doesn't seem to extend to the legal immigrant who is being insulted and injured by seeing those who flouted the law get special dispensations. If children of illegals (who are illegal themselves) can get breaks on in-state tuition and other privileges, then I want the money that my wife and I paid for her fines and other costs in resolving her immigration status returned to us before anyone who broke the law gets a handout.

As for the Palestinians, the people who are responsible for their suffering are their own leaders and the rest of the Arab nations that told them to leave so that they would not get in the way while the Jews were driven into the sea in 1948. Since then, they have done everything in their power to perpetuate their suffering and spread it to others through the systematic use of terror. I have no sympathy for someone who takes pride in murder, and whose greatest accomplishment is bragging that her martyr blew up somebody else's honor student.

That is correct. I do not approve of the State executing its citizens. That's a bit too obtrusive for me.
Okay. This is consistent, if arguable.

Wrong on that one.
Fair enough. How about Medicare and Medicaid?

That is meaningless outsid of the context of spending. I believe we should pay for the government we want and not fool ourselves by demanding complex, robust governing institutions while bemoaning its cost.
Ah, but do you favor complex, robust government that involves itself in all manner of things which are not explicitly permitted under the Constitution? Do you favor keeping the Depts. of Energy, Commerce and Education, for example?

It is balanced, in my opinion. My community sits on top of a large natural gas reserve. I want it tapped but that doesn't mean I am willing to be poisoned.
Okay, how about the Keystone pipeline? For or against.

LED's, baby. That's the way to go. Save the incandescents for when you sell the house.
Yes, but do you think that government should be mandating which bulb to use?